The Parimutuel Kelly Probability Scoring Rule

References

• Aucamp D. C. On the extensive number of plays to achieve superior performance with the geometric mean strategy. Management Sci. (1993) 39:1163–1172Link, Google Scholar
• Bernardo J. M. Expected information as expected utility. Ann. Statist. (1979) 7:686–690Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernardo J. M., Smith A. F. M.Bayesian Theory (1994) (John Wiley, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blume L., Easley D. Evolution and market behavior. J. Econom. Theory (1992) 58:9–40Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blume L., Easley D. Optimality and natural selection in markets. J. Econom. Theory (2002) 107:95–135Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blume L., Easley D. If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Belief selection in complete and incomplete markets. Econometrica (2006) 74:929–966Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breiman L., Neyman J., Scott E. Optimal gambling systems for favorable games. Proc. Fourth Berkeley Sympos. Math. Statist. Probab. (1961) 1(University of California Press, Berkeley, CA) 65–78Google Scholar
• Brier G. W. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Rev. (1950) 78:1–3Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clemen R. T. Calibration and aggregation of probabilities. Management Sci. (1986) 32:312–314Link, Google Scholar
• Clemen R. T. Combining overlapping information. Management Sci. (1987) 33:373–380Link, Google Scholar
• Clemen R. T., Winkler R. L. Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Anal. (1999) 19:187–203Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clements M. P. Evaluating the Bank of England density forecasts of inflation. Econom. J. (2004) 114:844–866Google Scholar
• Dawid A. P., Kotz S., Johnson N. L., Read C. B. Probability forecasting. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences (1986) 4(John Wiley, New York) 228–236Google Scholar
• de Finetti B. Does it make sense to speak of “Good probability appraisers?”. The Scientist Speculates: An Anthology of Partly Baked Ideas (1962) (Heinemann, London, UK) 357–364Google Scholar
• de Finetti B. Methods for discriminating levels of partial knowledge concerning a test item. British J. Math. Statist. Psych. (1965) 18:87–123Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Finetti B. Logical foundations and measurement of subjective probability. Acta Psychologica (1970) 34:129–145Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Finetti B.Theory of Probability (1974) 1(John Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• de Finetti B. Probability: Beware of falsifications. Scientia (1976) 111:283–303[Reprinted in H. E. Kyburg, H. E. Smokler. 1980. Studies in Subjective Probability, 2nd ed. Kreiger, New York, 194–224]Google Scholar
• DeGroot M. H., Feinberg S. E. The comparison and evaluation of forecasters. Statistician (1983) 32:12–22Crossref, Google Scholar
• Good I. J. Rational decisions. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B (1952) 14:107–114Google Scholar
• Good I. J., Leach J. J., Butts R., Pearce G. Information, rewards, and quasi-utilities. Science, Decision, and Value (1976) (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland) 115–127Google Scholar
• Granger C. W. J., Pesaran M. H. Economic and statistical measures of forecast accuracy. J. Forecasting (2000) 19:537–560Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hakansson N. H. Capital growth and the mean-variance approach to portfolio selection. J. Financial Quant. Anal. (1971) 6:517–557Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kadane J. B., Winkler R. L. Separating probability elicitation from utilities. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1988) 83:357–363Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kelly J. A new interpretation of the information rate. Bell System Tech. J. (1956) 35:917–926Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kilgour D. M., Gerchak Y. Elicitation of probabilities using competitive scoring rules. Decision Anal. (2004) 2:108–113Link, Google Scholar
• Levitt S. D. Why are betting markets organized so differently from financial markets? Econom. J. (2004) 114:223–246Google Scholar
• Li Y. Growth-security investment strategy for long and short runs. Management Sci. (1993) 39:915–924Link, Google Scholar
• Lichtendahl K. C., Winkler R. L. Probability elicitation, scoring rules, and competition among forecasters. Management Sci. (2007) . ForthcomingLink, Google Scholar
• Lindley D. V. Scoring rules and the inevitability of probability. Internat. Statist. Rev. (1982) 50:1–26Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lopez J. A. Evaluating the predictive accuracy of models. J. Forecasting (2001) 20:87–109Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luenberger D.Investment Science (1998) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• MacLean M. C., Ziemba W. T. Growth versus security tradeoffs in dynamic investment analysis. Ann. Oper. Res. (1999) 85:193–225Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacLean L. C., Ziemba W. T., Blazenko G. Growth versus security in dynamic investment analysis. Management Sci. (1992) 38:1562–1585Link, Google Scholar
• MacLean L. C., Sanegre R., Zhao Y., Ziemba W. T. Capital growth with security. J. Econom. Dynam. Control (2004) 28:937–954Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markowitz H. M. Investment for the long run: New evidence for an old rule. J. Finance (1976) 31:1273–1286Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy A. H. A note on the utility of probability predictions and the probability score in the cost-loss ratio decision situation. J. Appl. Meteorology (1966) 5:534–537Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy A. H., Winkler R. L. Scoring rules in probability assessment and evaluation. Acta Psychologica (1970) 34:273–286Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy A. H., Winkler R. L. A general framework for forecast evaluation. Monthly Weather Rev. (1987) 115:1330–1338Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy A. H., Winkler R. L. Diagnostic verification of probability forecasts. Internat. J. Forecasting (1992) 7:435–455Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nau R. F. Should scoring rules be “effective?”. Management Sci. (1985) 31:527–535Link, Google Scholar
• O’Hagan A.Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 2B. Bayesian Inference (1994) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Poundstone W.Fortune’s Formula: The Untold Story of the Scientific Betting System that Beat the Casinos and Wall Street (2005) (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux Publishers, New York) Google Scholar
• Roll R. Evidence on the growth optimum model. J. Finance (1973) 28:551–567Google Scholar
• Rubinstein M. The strong case for the generalized logarithmic utility model as the premier model of financial markets. J. Finance (1976) 31:551–571Crossref, Google Scholar
• Savage L. J. Elicitation of personal probabilities and expectations. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1971) 66:783–801Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thorp E.Beat the Dealer (1966) 2nd ed.(Vintage, New York) Google Scholar
• Thorp E. Optimal gambling systems for favorable games. Internat. Statist. Rev. (1969) 37:273–293Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thorp E. Portfolio choice and the Kelly criterion. Proc. Bus. Econom. Section Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1971) 215–224[Reprinted in W. T. Ziemba, R. G. Vickson. 1975. Stochastic Optimization Models in Finance. Academic Press, New York, 599–619]Google Scholar
• Thorp E., Vancura O., Cornelius J., Eadington W. R. The Kelly criterion in blackjack, sports betting, and the stock market. Finding the Edge: Mathematical Analysis of Casino Games (2000) (Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, Reno, NV) 163–213Google Scholar
• West M. Bayesian aggregation. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A (1984) 147:600–607Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winkler R. L. The quantification of judgment: Some methodological suggestions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1967) 62:1105–1120Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winkler R. L. Scoring rules and the evaluation of probability assessors. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1969) 64:1073–1078Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winkler R. L. Scoring rules and the evaluation of probabilities (with discussion). Test (1996) 5:1–60Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winkler R. L., Clemen R. T. Multiple experts vs. multiple methods: Combining correlation assessments. Decision Anal. (2004) 1:167–176Link, Google Scholar